Deregulating Genetically Engineered
Alfalfa and Sugar Beets: Legal and
Administrative Responses
Tadlock Cowan
Analyst in Natural Resources and Rural Development
Kristina Alexander
Legislative Attorney
September 10, 2012
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41395
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress

---

Deregulating Genetically Engineered Alfalfa and Sugar Beets

Summary
Monsanto Corporation, the developer of herbicide-tolerant varieties of genetically engineered
(GE) alfalfa and sugar beet (called Roundup Ready alfalfa and Roundup Ready sugar beet),
petitioned USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) for deregulation of the
items. Deregulation of GE plants is the final step in the commercialization process. Monsanto
filed a petition for deregulation of its GE alfalfa in 2004, and for GE sugar beets in 2005.
As part of the deregulation process, APHIS conducts an environmental review under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to determine whether any significant environmental impacts
will result from deregulation. APHIS conducted a limited review, known as an environmental
assessment (EA), of the GE plants to assess the impacts of growing them on a commercial scale.
APHIS issued a “finding of no significant impact” (FONSI) for GE alfalfa and GE sugar beets.
Lawsuits subsequently challenged the adequacy of the EAs in separate actions. Both courts held
that APHIS should have prepared a more analytically thorough environmental impact statement
(EIS) for the deregulation decisions. Separately, the courts directed APHIS to complete an EIS on
the effects of deregulating GE alfalfa and GE sugar beets.
The court in the GE alfalfa case halted planting of the genetically modified seed, and nullified the
deregulation. The injunction was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which held that the
injunction was too broad and that the court should have considered partial deregulation. The
Supreme Court did not discuss the appropriateness of the environmental review. In the meantime,
APHIS completed the environmental review directed by the lower court, releasing a final EIS for
GE alfalfa on December 16, 2010. On January 27, 2011, Secretary Vilsack announced that APHIS
was granting GE alfalfa full deregulation. On January 5, 2012, a federal district court rejected
claims that the deregulation violated the law.
The court in the GE sugar beet case did not formally prohibit planting sugar beets, but it voided
APHIS’s deregulation decision in August 2010, undoing the five-year-old approval of GE sugar
beets, from which nearly half of U.S. sugar is derived. APHIS issued four permits authorizing
seedling production that would not allow flowering or transplanting without additional
authorization. In November 2010, a judge ordered those seedlings pulled from the ground,
holding that APHIS had violated NEPA in issuing the permits. The Ninth Circuit temporarily
halted that decision in December 2010, ultimately holding in February 2011 that the seedlings did
not have to be removed.
APHIS announced on February 4, 2011, that the agency would partially deregulate GE sugar beet
root crop production, but would continue full regulation for sugar beet seed crop production while
the EIS was prepared. The final EIS for GE sugar beets was published June 1, 2012. On July 20,
2012, APHIS issued its determination of non-regulated status for GE sugar beets. Provisions to
amend APHIS’s regulatory procedures under the Plant Protection Act have been introduced in the
House farm bill (H.R. 6083) and in the House Agriculture appropriations bill (H.R. 5973).
The cases of GE alfalfa and sugar beets highlight continuing policy questions about the adequacy
of APHIS’s deregulation protocol, particularly regarding the environmental review process. In
their suits against APHIS, plaintiffs cited the EAs’ failure to assess the impact on non-GE alfalfa
growers (particularly those who export to Japan, Korea, and Taiwan) and on producers of
commercial table beet and chard seeds (species that can cross-pollinate with GE sugar beets).
Congressional Research Service

---

Deregulating Genetically Engineered Alfalfa and Sugar Beets

Contents
Plant Biotechnology Regulation and Oversight............................................................................... 1
Monsanto’s GE Alfalfa .............................................................................................................. 2
APHIS Decision to Deregulate GE Alfalfa ......................................................................... 3
Monsanto’s GE Sugar Beets...................................................................................................... 5
Legal Challenges of APHIS Environmental Assessments and Injunctions ..................................... 6
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): Overview ........................................................... 6
GE Alfalfa Litigation................................................................................................................. 7
Supreme Court Decision ..................................................................................................... 8
Alfalfa Litigation Challenging the 2011 Deregulation...................................................... 10
Congressional Response to the GE Alfalfa Court Decision .............................................. 10
GE Sugar Beet Litigation ........................................................................................................ 11
Proposals for Plant Biotechnology Regulatory and Legislative Changes...................................... 13
Proposed APHIS Revisions ..................................................................................................... 13
Legislative Activity ................................................................................................................. 15

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 15

Congressional Research Service

---

Deregulating Genetically Engineered Alfalfa and Sugar Beets

Plant Biotechnology Regulation and Oversight
The basic federal guidance for regulating biotechnology products is the Coordinated Framework
for Regulation of Biotechnology (51 Federal Register 23302), published in 1986 by the White
House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). A key regulatory principle is that
genetically engineered (GE) products should continue to be regulated according to their
characteristics and unique features, not their production method—that is, not on the basis of their
creation through biotechnology. The framework provides a regulatory approach intended to
ensure the safety of biotechnology research and products, using existing statutory authority and
previous agency experience with traditional breeding techniques. The three lead agencies are U.S.
Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) at the Department of Health and Human Services, and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
APHIS regulates the importation, interstate movement, and field testing of GE plants and
organisms that are or might be plant pests under the Plant Protection Act of 2000 (PPA; 7 U.S.C.
§§7701 et seq.).1 Because the Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology regulates
GE plants under existing authorities, APHIS’s guiding statutory authority under the PPA became
the vehicle by which APHIS regulated plants that had been genetically modified to produce novel
proteins, such as those conferring herbicide tolerance and pest resistance.2 GE plants that are or
might be plant pests are considered “regulated articles” under APHIS regulations (7 C.F.R.
§§340-340.9). APHIS authorization must be obtained prior to import, interstate movement, or
environmental release, including field testing.
In the 1986 Framework document, USDA published proposed rules under the PPA that would
allow it to regulate outdoor uses of transgenic plants. These regulations were finalized in June
1987 in essentially the same form as the proposed rules.3 Technically, the PPA regulations do not
cover all genetically engineered plants. The regulations cover only those plants engineered to
contain DNA sequences from certain genera containing species that were considered to be
potential plant pests. The regulations included a broad list of such genera; and this had the
practical effect of causing most transgenic plants to be captured by the regulations.4
A “regulated” plant cannot be introduced into the environment unless its developer obtains
APHIS authorization through either the permit process or the notification process. Permits impose
restrictions on movement and planting to prevent escape of plant material that may pose a pest

1 APHIS also regulates animal biologics (i.e., viruses, serums, toxins for animal vaccines) under the Virus, Serum, and
Toxins Act (21 U.S.C. §§151 et seq.).
2 The Plant Protection Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-224) consolidates all or part of 10 existing USDA plant health laws into
one comprehensive law, including the authority to regulate plants, plant products, certain biological control organisms,
noxious weeds, and plant pests. The Plant Quarantine Act, the Federal Pest Act, and the Federal Noxious Weed Act are
among the 10 statutes the new act replaces. The PPA expands the definition of noxious weed from the definition in the
Federal Noxious Weed Act, which included only weeds that were of foreign origin, new to the United States, or not
widely prevalent in the United States. The PPA now defines a noxious weed as a weed that could harm agriculture,
public health, navigation, irrigation, natural resources, or the environment. Under the PPA, noxious weeds are regulated
similarly to plant pests.
3 52 Federal Register 22892 (June 16, 1987).
4 The genus Agrobacterium was on the APHIS list of regulated items. In practice, DNA sequences from Agrobacterium
tumefaciens were almost universally used in GE procedures. The presence of A. tumefaciens DNA in the resulting plant
would often be enough to subject the GE plant to regulation under the PPA.
Congressional Research Service
1

---

Deregulating Genetically Engineered Alfalfa and Sugar Beets

risk. Developers follow APHIS guidance on testing and movements to ensure that the plant will
not damage agriculture, human health, or the environment, including the human environment.
Most GE crops have been developed under the notification option, an expedited procedure that is
less rigorous than permitting.5 Notification can be used in lieu of permitting when the plant
species is not considered a noxious weed (or a weed in the release area) and other APHIS
standards are met.
After a GE variety is approved for release into the environment on a trial basis, the developer of
the GE seed typically petitions APHIS for “deregulated status” of the particular GE “event” that
has been initially approved. This is the last step to full-scale commercialization of the GE plant.
Once the GE plant is deregulated, it is no longer subject to APHIS regulation under 7 C.F.R. Part
340. A significant step in this deregulation process involves an assessment of the plant’s
environmental impact, including impacts on the human environment. The National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to prepare a detailed environmental
impact statement (EIS) for all “major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment.”6 The “human environment” includes socioeconomic impacts that might
arise from the major federal action. If an agency is unsure of the significance of any
environmental impacts, it may prepare an environmental assessment (EA), which is a limited
review. Based on the conclusions of that review, the agency can decide an EIS is needed because
of the impacts found, or it may issue a “finding of no significant impact,” known as a FONSI.
Monsanto Corporation, the developer of herbicide-tolerant varieties of GE alfalfa and sugar beet
(marketed under the name of Roundup Ready alfalfa and Roundup Ready sugar beet), petitioned
APHIS for deregulation of these items in 2004 (for GE alfalfa) and 2005 (for GE sugar beets).
APHIS conducted EAs of the GE plants to assess the impacts of growing them on a commercial
scale. APHIS issued EA-FONSIs for GE alfalfa in June 2005 and for GE sugar beets in March
2005.
Both of these EA FONSIs were challenged in separate lawsuits. The courts found that APHIS’s
environmental assessments were inadequate. These two cases are discussed in detail below (see
“Legal Challenges of APHIS Environmental Assessments and Injunctions”).
Monsanto’s GE Alfalfa
Alfalfa is the fourth-largest crop grown in the United States, with nearly 23 million acres of
alfalfa harvested annually. It is a perennial that can be planted in the spring and fall, and a typical
field may be harvested three or four times a year. The crop can remain productive for several
years and is often rotated with other crops because it improves the soil’s nitrogen content. While
nearly all states grow some alfalfa, most alfalfa acreage is in the West and Midwest, including
California, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Idaho, Iowa, and Minnesota. Most alfalfa is grown for hay
or forage for livestock, primarily for dairy cattle, beef cattle, and horses. A portion of the crop
also is grown for seed, mostly in the western United States.

5 Introducing into the environment a so-called bio-pharm plant (i.e., those GE plants that have been engineered to
express a pharmaceutically active compound) is authorized under the APHIS permit process rather than the notification
process.
6 42 U.S.C. §4332(2)(C).
Congressional Research Service
2

---

Deregulating Genetically Engineered Alfalfa and Sugar Beets

Weed management in alfalfa fields is a long-standing concern for alfalfa producers. One of
Monsanto’s GE innovations is the development of plant varieties that are tolerant of the broad-
spectrum herbicide glyphosate, marketed under Monsanto’s Roundup trademark.7 Roundup
Ready (RR) soybeans, cotton, canola, and corn are widely planted varieties that express this
genetically engineered trait. With Monsanto’s development of GE alfalfa—the first perennial to
be genetically engineered—a grower can apply a glyphosate-based herbicide to the field after
weeds have germinated and not harm the growing alfalfa plant. Concerns about increasing weed-
tolerance stemming from the widespread use of glyphosate on GE varieties, and questions about
the toxicity of glyphosate, continue to be raised.8
As noted above, APHIS regulates the release into the environment of “organisms and products
altered or produced through genetic engineering that are plant pests or are believed to be plant
pests.”9 These “regulated articles” are field-tested subject to APHIS’s performance standards
governing releases into the environment. APHIS authorized field trials for GE alfalfa in 1998.
Monsanto subsequently submitted protocols to APHIS that included a 900-foot buffer zone
between the GE alfalfa and non-GE alfalfa, and confinement of flowering plants in cages so that
pollinators (e.g., bees) could not get access. The protocols also required that GE alfalfa be
destroyed when the field trials ended, that plant residue be disked into the soil, and that the fields
be labeled and monitored for one growing season. From 1999 to 2005, APHIS authorized 297
field trials for GE alfalfa.
Following nearly eight years of field trials, Monsanto and Forage Genetics International
submitted a petition to APHIS in May 2003 requesting deregulated status of two lines of GE
alfalfa under the Plant Protection Act.
APHIS Decision to Deregulate GE Alfalfa
Deregulating a GE item is a “major federal action” and, as such, NEPA requires APHIS to review
the environmental implications of the deregulation, preparing either an EA or an EIS. As noted
above, an EA can be used to determine whether an EIS is necessary. But APHIS found an EIS
was not required by the circumstances. On June 27, 2005, following review of public comments
on the draft EA, APHIS announced in the Federal Register its decision to deregulate GE alfalfa
and issued a FONSI.10 APHIS essentially concluded that GE alfalfa exhibited no plant pathogenic
properties that could have environmental impacts, and, consequently, that an EIS was not
required. The EA is a more limited assessment of the environmental impacts of an action, and the
decision to issue a FONSI rather than conduct an EIS led to a legal challenge. This challenge
(litigation discussed below) resulted in a court directing APHIS to prepare an EIS.

7 Plants are genetically engineered to be glyphosate-tolerant by inserting into the plant genome a gene coding for the
expression of a particular enzyme. The gene comes from a common soil bacterium, Agrobacterium, and is introduced
into the plant by a procedure widely used over the past 20 years.
8 The evolution of herbicide-resistant weeds has been well-documented. The widespread adoption of glyphosate-
tolerant GE varieties is a significant factor in the development of the herbicide resistance. On July 28, 2010, the House
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform’s Domestic Policy Oversight Subcommittee held hearings entitled
“Are ‘Superweeds’ an Outgrowth of USDA Biotech Policy?” on the emergence of herbicide-resistant weeds, with
particular focus on glyphosate-resistant weeds.
9 7 C.F.R. §340(a)(2).
10 70 Federal Register 36917 (June 27, 2005).
Congressional Research Service
3

---

Deregulating Genetically Engineered Alfalfa and Sugar Beets

On December 14, 2009, following litigation (discussed below), APHIS announced that its draft
EIS concerning GE alfalfa was available for public comment. The comment period, which was
extended, ended March 3, 2010. The final EIS, which addresses the 244,000 comments received
on the draft EIS, was published on December 16, 2010.11 The final EIS examined three possible
outcomes: (1) complete deregulation, (2) continuing the plant’s regulated status, and (3) partial
regulation with geographic restrictions and isolation distances on production of GE alfalfa seed
and, in some locations, hay production.12
On January 27, 2011, Secretary Vilsack announced that APHIS was granting GE alfalfa full
deregulation.13 The stated basis of the decision was that GE alfalfa posed no greater plant pest
risk than other conventional alfalfa varieties. APHIS concluded that any option other than full
deregulation was inconsistent with their regulatory authority under the Plant Protection Act. In the
EIS, APHIS identified both the complete deregulation and the partial/conditional deregulation as
preferred alternatives.14 While the decision to deregulate means that APHIS has no further
regulatory control over the planting, distribution, or other actions related to GE alfalfa, growers
continue to be subject to any contract restrictions imposed by Monsanto’s technology use
agreement. Those non-regulatory restrictions include managing hay to prevent seed production,
harvesting at or before 10% bloom in areas where seed is produced, and prohibitions on use in
wildlife feed plots. Growers who raise alfalfa for seed would be required to follow Forage
Genetics International Best Practices.
Representatives of national agricultural commodity associations (e.g., American Farm Bureau
Federation, National Cotton Council, USA Rice Federation) sent a letter to the Administration’s
Office of Science and Technology Policy on January 5, 2011, opposing the partial deregulation,
arguing that such a decision would be a significant departure from the 1986 Coordinated
Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology.15 The letter also expressed concern that a partial
deregulation could have impacts on current trade agreements. At a forum on January 20, 2010,
convened by the House Agriculture Committee, Members queried Secretary Vilsack about the
partial deregulation option, and indicated their support for full deregulation.
The Center for Food Safety (CFS), one of the original plaintiffs, criticized APHIS’s decision and
vowed to continue its legal challenge to deregulating GE alfalfa. In an open letter to Secretary
Vilsack, CFS claimed that the Final EIS was still deficient in its assessment of the impacts of GE
alfalfa, noting among other alleged deficiencies, not properly assessing liability and oversight, the
impact of increased herbicide use, and the harm from herbicide-resistant weeds.16

11 The Final EIS is available at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/downloads/alfalfa/gt_alfalfa%20_feis.pdf.
12 The draft EIS considered only two alternatives: (1) continuing to regulate GE alfalfa, or (2) complete deregulation.
13 USDA News Release No. 0035.11, USDA Announces Decision to Fully Deregulate Roundup Ready Alfalfa (January
27, 2011). 76 Federal Register 5780 (February 2, 2011).
14 EIS, Glyphosate-Tolerant Alfalfa Events J101 and J163: Request for Nonregulated Status, Executive Summary p. iii
(December 2010).
15 A copy of the letter is available at http://www.soygrowers.com/members/dw2/weekly/LL11/pdf/
RRAlfalfaltr010511.pdf.
16 Copy of the letter is available at http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Open-Letter-CFS-
to-Vilsack-FINAL-1-24-10-with-CC-list.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
4

---

Deregulating Genetically Engineered Alfalfa and Sugar Beets

Monsanto’s GE Sugar Beets
Weed management is a significant problem for sugar beet growers as well. Monsanto’s GE sugar
beet was initially poised for introduction in 2000, but because large sugar-using food companies
(e.g., Hershey, Mars) were worried about consumer acceptance of GE-derived sugar, growers
were reluctant to plant them. Approximately five years later, most sugar processors were less
concerned about consumer resistance, while growers were eager to plant the herbicide-tolerant
varieties.17 Following a similar regulatory path to that of GE alfalfa, APHIS deregulated GE sugar
beets in 2005, approving them for food and feed.
Sugar beets account for about half of the national overall sugar production. GE sugar beets have
been widely commercialized in the United States since they were first planted in 2008/2009 in the
western United States. In the 2009/2010 crop year, GE varieties accounted for about 95% of the
1.185 million acres of sugar beets planted nationally, up from about 60% in 2008/2009. Sugar
beets are grown in 11 states, in five regions of the United States. Two of these regions are east of
the Mississippi River, while the other three are in the Great Plains and far West. GE sugar beets
have been approved for feed, food, and cultivation in Canada and Japan. GE sugar beets have also
been approved for feed and food use—but not cultivation—in the European Union, Mexico,
South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Colombia, Russia, China, Singapore, and the Philippines.
APHIS issued an EA-FONSI for the cultivation and agricultural use of a Monsanto/KWS SAAT
AG-developed variety of glyphosate-tolerant (Roundup Ready) sugar beet (designated as Event
H7-1) in March 2005.18 The determination meant that GE beets were no longer a regulated article
under 7 C.F.R. Part 340. Following a court challenge (discussed below) of the EA-FONSI, similar
to that of GE alfalfa, APHIS subsequently published a notice in the Federal Register of its intent
to prepare an EIS and the proposed scope of the study.19
In the notice of APHIS’s intent to prepare an EIS, APHIS listed several potential issues that
would be addressed in the EIS. These included
• management practices for organic sugar beets, conventional sugar beets, and
glyphosate-tolerant sugar beets;
• production levels for organic and conventional sugar beets, Swiss chard, and
table beets by region, state, and county;
• potential impacts of glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet cultivation on livestock
production systems;
• potential impact of glyphosate-tolerant sugar beets on food and feed;
• differences in weediness traits of conventional vs. glyphosate-tolerant sugar
beets;

17 The actual sugar derived from GE sugar beets contains none of the engineered protein that confers herbicide-
tolerance—that is, the sugar from GE-beets is chemically indistinguishable from that derived from non-GE sugar beets.
18 Monsanto Company and KWS SAAT AG Petition 03-323-01p for Determination of Nonregulated Status for
Roundup-Ready Sugar Beet Event H7-1. USDA/APHIS Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant
Impact, February 2005. Document available at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs2/04_11001p_com.pdf.
19 75 Federal Register 29969 (May 28, 2010).
Congressional Research Service
5

---

Deregulating Genetically Engineered Alfalfa and Sugar Beets

• occurrences of common and serious weeds found in organic, conventional, and
glyphosate-tolerant sugar beets;
• management practices for controlling organic, conventional, and glyphosate-
tolerant sugar beets; and
• cumulative impact on the development of glyphosate-resistant weeds.
Sugar beet seed is grown primarily in Oregon’s Willamette Valley, which is also an important
seed-growing area for crops closely related to sugar beets, such as Swiss chard and table beets.
GE sugar beets are wind-pollinated and would likely cross-pollinate the related crops being
grown in the same area. The GE beets could also cross-pollinate non-GE beets, but because most
sugar beets are now GE beets, this may not be as significant an issue as the potential
contamination of non-GE alfalfa by GE alfalfa. Biological contamination of table beets and Swiss
chard seed, especially organic table beet and chard seed, could represent a significant economic
impact for organic farmers, who could face major market losses if their crops were contaminated
by a GE variety. In the September 21, 2009, order requiring APHIS to prepare an EIS (discussed
below), the court emphasized that “the potential elimination of a farmer’s choice to grow non-
genetically engineered crops, or a consumer’s choice to eat non-genetically engineered food, is an
action that potentially eliminates or reduces the availability of a particular plant and has a
significant effect on the human environment.”20
Legal Challenges of APHIS Environmental
Assessments and Injunctions
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): Overview
NEPA requires that federal agencies evaluate the environmental consequences of “major federal
actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.”21 Under NEPA, the
environmental review must consider the environmental impact of the proposed action, any
adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented, and
alternatives to the proposed action. Analysis of environmental impacts “affecting the quality of
the human environment” can also include socioeconomic impacts. NEPA requires that
environmental analyses use an interdisciplinary approach “which will insure the integrated use of
the natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts in planning and in
decisionmaking.”22 NEPA also established the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), a White
House office that establishes NEPA regulations for all agencies to follow. In addition to the
general NEPA regulations, each agency prepares its own regulations or guidelines on how to
follow NEPA.
Environmental reviews can take three forms: an EIS, an EA, or a categorical exclusion (CE).23 An
EIS requires the most scrutiny and the most public input. While an EA also requires a review of

20 Center for Food Safety v. Vilsack, No. C 08-00484, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86343 (N.D. Cal. September 21, 2009).
21 42 U.S.C. §4332(2)(C).
22 42 U.S.C. §4332(2)(A).
23 A categorical exclusion occurs when an agency has determined that a type of action typically has no significant
impacts, and therefore, no review is required. See 40 C.F.R. §1508.4.
Congressional Research Service
6

---

Deregulating Genetically Engineered Alfalfa and Sugar Beets

the impacts and alternatives, its review is more limited: it is designed to determine whether there
are significant impacts from a proposed action that would require an EIS, rather than to analyze
those impacts fully. A CE is used when an agency has determined in advance that a type of action,
individually or cumulatively, has no significant impacts on the environment.24
GE Alfalfa Litigation
APHIS prepared EAs for the deregulating determinations for both alfalfa and sugar beets.
Separate judges found that the environmental reviews were inadequate.25 Both initial NEPA
decisions were by the federal District Court for the Northern District of California. The alfalfa
case was decided first, and the court found that APHIS, in preparing the EA-FONSI, had failed to
take a hard look at the environmental consequences. The court said there was no supporting
material in the EA for the conclusion that gene transmission from the GE alfalfa was highly
unlikely to occur.26 Despite APHIS’s finding of no significant impact, the court found evidence
that there might be a significant environmental impact. Specifically, the court noted that APHIS
had found that gene transmission would occur on some scale, but failed to explore measures that
could prevent or reduce such contamination.27 Also, the court found APHIS’s argument
unsubstantiated that alfalfa grown for forage28 was never harvested after seed maturity.
Another reason the environmental review was inadequate, according to the court, was because it
failed to consider cumulative impacts as required under NEPA. In this case, that meant APHIS
should have evaluated the cumulative impact of deregulating multiple GE crops that are designed
to be resistant to a particular herbicide. The plaintiffs argued that twice as much herbicide would
be used on those GE crops, possibly causing pollution but also leading to herbicide-resistant
weeds. The court agreed that these environmental effects had not been considered, not just for
alfalfa, but in the larger context of the other modified seed, such as soybean and corn.29
The district court rejected APHIS’s argument that any harm from GE alfalfa would be economic
and outside the scope of NEPA. Economic effects could include the loss of revenue for alfalfa
export if the crops were contaminated. The court held that any economic harm was a direct result
of the changed physical environment—unintentional genetically modified alfalfa. Because
economic harm was an interrelated and a direct effect, it was appropriate to review under NEPA.
The court noted that a NEPA review was intended to consider all impacts to avoid “undesirable
and unintended consequences.”30
When courts hold that an EA is inadequate, one course of action is to direct the agency to prepare
an adequate EA as a way of remedying the NEPA defects. Instead, this court directed APHIS to

24 40 C.F.R. §1508.4.
25 Geertson Seed Farms v. Johanns, No. C 06-01075, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14533 (N.D. Cal. February 13, 2007)
(Geertson Seed Farms) (alfalfa), aff’d, 570 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir. 2009), rev’d sub nom. Monsanto Co v. Geertson Seed
Farms, 127 S. Ct. 2743 (2010); Center for Food Safety v. Vilsack, No. C 08-00484, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86343
(N.D. Cal. September 21, 2009) (sugar beet).
26 Geertson Seed Farms, at *21.
27 Geertson Seed Farms, at *18-19.
28 Alfalfa grown for forage typically is harvested before seeds form.
29 Geertson Seed Farms, at *30-31.
30 42 U.S.C. §4331(b)(3). Geertson Seed Farms, at *25-26.
Congressional Research Service
7

---

Deregulating Genetically Engineered Alfalfa and Sugar Beets

prepare an EIS, finding that there were substantial questions regarding the environmental impact
of the GE alfalfa deregulation.
Additionally, the court halted planting of any GE alfalfa after March 30, 2007, and prohibited the
sale of GE seed.31 The court stated that this was not a drastic remedy because it still allowed
regular alfalfa to be sold and planted. The injunction only returned GE alfalfa to its regulated
status. APHIS had proposed various restrictions that would permit planting GE alfalfa while
APHIS prepared the EIS: mandatory isolation distances between GE alfalfa and conventional and
organic seed production fields; mandatory harvesting conditions; handling requirements; and a
prohibition on the use of GE alfalfa for livestock grazing or in mixed grass pastures. The court
rejected the alternatives, finding that APHIS would be conducting an abbreviated environmental
review of those options before the court without having to follow NEPA.32
The plaintiffs wanted a complete ban on GE alfalfa. But because they did not seek a preliminary
injunction prior to the court’s decision and some growers had planted GE alfalfa,33 which was
commercially available for planting in June 2005, the court held that growers who had already
planted GE alfalfa would not be required to remove the plants.
Supreme Court Decision
The decision of the lower court to enjoin planting GE alfalfa was appealed, although the findings
of an inadequate NEPA review were not. (APHIS was preparing an EIS.) The Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals affirmed the lower court determination that the injunction was appropriate under the
circumstances.34 The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the scope of the injunction was too
broad—the district court had overstepped its authority in preventing APHIS from designing a
different way of regulating GE alfalfa and from preventing any planting or harvesting of the
product.35
Courts must consider four factors when determining whether an injunction is an appropriate
remedy: (1) availability of another remedy, such as money damages; (2) irreparable injury if the
injunction is not granted; (3) balance of harms; and (4) the public interest. The Supreme Court
said that none of these factors supported issuing the injunction.36 The Court described the lower
court’s ruling as doing three things: vacating the deregulation decision; prohibiting new
deregulation while the EIS was being prepared; and preventing planting and sale of GE alfalfa.
The first factor was not being challenged. The Court said that the injunction was inappropriate
based on the remaining two parts.
The Supreme Court said that the lower court could only restrict the deregulation that was in front
of it and not a different regulatory scheme, and accordingly, the injunction went too far. One

31 Geertson Farms, Inc. v. Johanns, No. 06-01075, 2007 WL 776146 (N.D. Cal. March 12, 2007) (preliminary
injunction); Geertson Farms, Inc. v. Johanns, 2007 WL 1302981 (N.D. Cal. May 3, 2007) (permanent injunction).
32 Geertson Farms, Inc. v. Johanns, 2007 WL 1302981, *5 (N.D. Cal. May 3, 2007).
33 Approximately 5,500 growers across 263,000 acres were estimated to have planted GE alfalfa grown before the
injunction. Ag Biotech Reporter, vol. 3, no.2, January 25, 2010.
34 Geertson Seed Farms v. Johanns, 570 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir. 2009), rev’d sub nom. Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed
Farms, 130 S. Ct. 2743 (2010).
35 Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 130 S. Ct. 2743 (2010).
36 Id. at 2758.
Congressional Research Service
8

---

Deregulating Genetically Engineered Alfalfa and Sugar Beets

reason the Court rejected the injunction was that it was premature. APHIS had not yet acted to
deregulate again or in a different way, and so there could be no finding of irreparable injury,
according to the Court. The Court referred to partial deregulation, using the term to mean where
APHIS would impose some restrictions on planting and harvesting, similar to those brought to the
district court’s attention at the time of the injunction hearing. The Court said the injunction was
harsh because there was no need to enjoin partial deregulation—the administrative process for
partial deregulation would be available for challenge just as it had been for full deregulation. The
courts could review the harms when partial deregulation was completed. By preventing APHIS
from acting to deregulate partially, the injunction had prevented the possibility that APHIS would
sufficiently restrict the use of GE alfalfa such that no genetic transmission would occur.
The Court rejected the injunction on new planting of GE alfalfa on the same basis. If a partial
deregulation decision had been allowed, planting may have been acceptable under those
conditions. But because the lower courts rejected APHIS’s offers of partial deregulation, modified
planting could not be considered in the deregulation process. Additionally, the Court noted that
since injunctive relief is a “drastic remedy,” which should be used only when necessary, different
relief could have been tailored to avoid the injunction. A partial deregulation would allow a more
limited remedy.
Essentially, the Supreme Court holding contemplates the possibility that instead of preparing (or
in addition to preparing) an EIS for full deregulation of GE alfalfa, as required by the district
court, APHIS could conduct a separate, partial deregulation process. The partial deregulation
could impose conditions on planting and harvesting. When concluded, some restrictions would
still be in place, even though growers could plant GE alfalfa. Presumably, that partial
deregulation would still undergo a NEPA review. The Court suggested it could be subject to a
NEPA challenge.37
The dissenting opinion of the 7-1 decision38 disputed the authority of the Court in this case over
the issue of partial deregulation, which, Justice Stevens said in his dissent, had never been raised
or argued before either the district court or the court of appeals on its way to the Supreme Court.39
The dissent stated that an injunction was appropriate here where “the environmental threat is
novel.”40 Justice Stevens noted that halting deregulation did not prevent the use of alfalfa, it just
prevented the deregulated use of GE alfalfa. Accordingly, vacating the deregulation decision put
regulated use of GE alfalfa back in place, and was not as drastic a step as painted by the majority.
Additionally, the dissenting opinion addressed the environmental impacts of GE alfalfa, finding
that the balance of harms supported the injunction. The dissent said that the majority opinion did
not dispute the factual findings of the district court that GE alfalfa can and has genetically
modified other crops and that genetic contamination could harm the U.S. export market for
alfalfa.

37 Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, at 2760.
38 Justice Breyer abstained, as his brother was the judge for the District Court for the Northern District of California
who issued the injunction.
39 Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, at 2765.
40 Id. at 2768.
Congressional Research Service
9

---

Deregulating Genetically Engineered Alfalfa and Sugar Beets

Alfalfa Litigation Challenging the 2011 Deregulation
Following an EIS, APHIS announced it was fully deregulating GE alfalfa. The Center for Food
Safety, the plaintiff that successfully challenged the EA as inadequate, brought suit arguing that
the final EIS is deficient, and that APHIS violated the Plant Protection Act when it claimed it
could not deregulate this crop.41 The district court held that APHIS had complied with the law.42
The decision is being appealed.
Congressional Response to the GE Alfalfa Court Decision
Senator Leahy and Representative DeFazio sent a letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack
opposing the APHIS FONSI and urging the Secretary to keep GE alfalfa a regulated item.43 The
Members cited evidence from Cal/West Seeds, a major alfalfa seed exporter, that a reported 30%
of 10 seed stock lots had tested positive for GE alfalfa from the two years when GE alfalfa was
grown prior to the injunction. The letter also cited Dairyland Seed Company, another major
alfalfa seed producer and exporter, which reported contamination of 11-16 sites at distances of up
to 1.5 miles, considerably farther than the 900-foot isolation distances APHIS recommends. The
threat of losses to export markets in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan, the potential damage to organic
dairy producers, and the potential development of herbicide-tolerant weeds were also cited as
reasons to retain regulated status for GE alfalfa. The letter states that these concerns were
minimized and/or dismissed by APHIS in its issuance of a FONSI.
Section 10210 of the enacted 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246) provides APHIS with added authority
to ensure that the GE contamination was minimized or prevented. APHIS has yet to adopt these
statutory mandates. The letter to Secretary Vilsack asserted that the broad regulatory authority
provided APHIS has been “ignored in order to justify deregulation of a biotech crop that has
limited utility to anyone except the manufacturer.”44 The letter further asserted that “there is
significant concern that the risks to alfalfa producers and U.S. agriculture are too great and
benefits too few to allow deregulation.”
Representatives Jenkins, Herger, and Courtney also sent a letter to Secretary Vilsack (co-signed
by 75 Members).45 Their letter requested that APHIS partially deregulate GE alfalfa while the
final EIS is being completed. The Members’ letter, while recognizing that the Supreme Court
decision does not actually give growers permission to plant GE alfalfa, argued that APHIS could
issue an interim permit to allow planting of GE alfalfa in fall 2010. The letter cited the Supreme
Court ruling that the decision to enjoin further planting was “a drastic and extraordinary remedy,
which should not be granted as a matter of course,” and that a “permanent injunction is not now
needed to guard against any present or imminent risk of likely irreparable harm.”

41 Center for Food Safety v. Vilsack, CV-11-1310-EDL (N.D. Cal. complaint filed March 18, 2011).
42 Center for Food Safety v. Vilsack, 844 F. Supp. 2d 1006 (N.D. Cal. 2012).
43 The letter was co-signed by 49 House Members and five other Senators. A copy of the letter may be accessed at
http://leahy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/AlfalfaLetter.pdf.
44 This refers to §10204 of the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246), which directs the Secretary to take action on each issue
identified in the document Lessons Learned and Revisions under Consideration for APHIS’ Biotechnology Framework,
October 2007.
45 The text of the letter is at http://www.agrimarketing.com/show_story.php?id=61598.
Congressional Research Service
10

---

Deregulating Genetically Engineered Alfalfa and Sugar Beets

On January 20, 2011, the House Committee on Agriculture held a forum, with Secretary Vilsack
as a witness, on the options available to the Secretary regarding GE alfalfa. The Secretary had
previously raised the issue of the option to partially deregulate as a means of promoting
“coexistence” among GE alfalfa growers, organic growers, and conventional alfalfa growers. A
partial deregulation was one of three options considered in the final EIS. Members of the
committee queried Secretary Vilsack on his authority under the Plant Protection Act to do
anything but fully deregulate GE alfalfa because APHIS had determined that GE alfalfa was not a
plant pest as defined by the Plant Protection Act.
GE Sugar Beet Litigation
The district court that reviewed GE sugar beets used the same reasoning as the district court in the
GE alfalfa case and reached the same conclusion: APHIS should have prepared an EIS for its
deregulation determination.46 It found that deregulation could result in significant environmental
impacts. The court focused on the risk of gene transmission not only for non-GE sugar beets, but
also for related crops such as Swiss chard and table beets. However, the GE sugar beet court did
not examine whether deregulation would lead to herbicide-resistant weeds, stating that APHIS’s
failure to consider gene transmission was enough to find that the EA violated NEPA.
Unlike in the alfalfa decision, no injunction was granted regarding sugar beets. In its September
2009 decision, the court found that the balance of harms and the public interest weighed in favor
of allowing continued deregulation of GE sugar beets.47 The plaintiffs had waited to try to enjoin
planting sugar beets until five years after they were deregulated. According to the court, in the
five years between when GE sugar beets were deregulated and an injunction was sought, GE
sugar beets became the industry standard, with over 95% of all sugar beets planted being GE.48
Not enough non-GE seed would be available were an injunction to issue. Therefore, the court
found that the plaintiffs’ delay in seeking an injunction and the harm that would result if it were
granted weighed in favor of denying the injunction.
In August 2010, the court revisited the issue of whether to issue an injunction.49 While the court
did not issue an injunction, it vacated the deregulation decision of APHIS. By not issuing an
injunction, the court avoided the “drastic remedy” the Supreme Court criticized in the GE alfalfa
decision. However, the practical effect is that this decision halted unregulated planting of GE
sugar beets after August 13, 2010. The court stated that APHIS’s failure to act after the September
2009 decision (holding that GE sugar beets posed a serious environmental harm) suggested that
the agency considered the environmental review a “mere formality.” APHIS could have used that
time to conduct an environmental review based on its request for a nine-month delay, according
to the court, and then vacating the deregulation would not have been necessary.
As it stands, the court precedent is that GE crops may pose an environmental harm by genetically
modifying other crops. The economic impacts of the genetic contamination have been found to be
direct effects that are properly considered under NEPA. Whether or not such harm is significant

46 Center for Food Safety v. Vilsack, No. C 08-00484, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86343 (N.D. Cal. September 21, 2009)
(sugar beet).
47 Center for Food Safety v. Schafer, No. C 08-00484, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35808 (N.D. Cal. March 16, 2010).
48 Id. at *11-12.
49 Center for Food Safety v. Vilsack, 734 F. Supp. 2d 948 (N.D. Cal. 2010).
Congressional Research Service
11

---

Deregulating Genetically Engineered Alfalfa and Sugar Beets

enough to warrant retaining regulated status for other GE items will have to be determined on a
case-by-case basis.
The federal court ruling vacating the original deregulation order did not restrict growers’ ability to
harvest sugar beets planted before August 13, 2010, or that of processors to convert existing GE
sugar beets to sugar and sell the product. Neither did the decision prevent APHIS from
considering a partial deregulation order that could permit growers to plant GE sugar beets under
certain regulatory restrictions.
APHIS announced on September 1, 2010, that it was issuing permits to sugar beet seed producers
to authorize seedling production in fall 2010. The permits would prohibit seedling flowering or
transplanting without additional approval. The Center for Food Safety filed suit to stop the
permits and force removal of the seedlings. APHIS had issued the permits under a categorical
exclusion (CE) under NEPA, which meant the agency had found no significant impacts would
result from planting the seeds. The plaintiffs argued that the CE violated NEPA, and the court
agreed.50 The court found that the seedlings had no independent utility unless they were allowed
to continue to grow, but APHIS had not looked at the environmental consequences of the entire
life cycle. By isolating the permits to plant seedlings, without considering the future of the plants
(such as transplanting or flowering), APHIS improperly segmented the environmental review,
according to the court. In December, the court ordered the seedlings uprooted.51 The Ninth Circuit
issued an emergency stay, delaying the effective date of the order,52 ultimately holding that the
order went too far.53
The Ninth Circuit found that based on the biennial growth pattern of sugar beets, in which the
root develops in the first year and seeds develop only in the second year, there was no showing of
likely injury from genetic contamination. The permitted sugar beet crops would be completely
harvested after the first year, well before development of pollen.
On November 4, 2010, APHIS published its draft EA on partially deregulating GE sugar beets—
Event H7-1—for seed and crop production.54 A final EA-FONSI was issued on February 4, 2011,
when the agency announced that it would partially deregulate GE sugar beet root crop production,
but not seed crop production.55 GE sugar beet seed would remain fully regulated. The partial
deregulation of GE sugar beet root crop production was an interim measure effective through
December 31, 2012, while APHIS completed the EIS.
The Center for Food Safety filed suit in the Northern District of California arguing that the EA is
contrary to law.56 Other plaintiffs in that suit include Organic Seed Alliance, Sierra Club, and
High Mowing Organic Seed. The suit claims there are significant environmental effects due to
increased use of herbicide on GE crops and questions whether sugar beet seed production can be

50 Center for Food Safety v. Vilsack, No. 3:10-cv-04038-JSW (N.D. Cal. September 28, 2010) (holding that the
plaintiffs had a likelihood of winning the case).
51 Center for Food Safety v. Vilsack, No. 3:10-cv-04038-JSW, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141390 (N.D. Cal. November
30, 2010).

52 Center for Food Safety v. Vilsack, No. 10-17719 (9th Cir. December 6, 2010).
53 Center for Food Safety v. Vilsack, 636 F.3d 116 (9th Cir. February 25, 2011).
54 75 Federal Register 67945 (November 4, 2010).
55 76 Federal Register 6759 (February 8, 2011).
56 Center for Food Safety v. Vilsack, No. 3:11-cv-00831-JSW (N.D. Cal. complaint filed February 23, 2011).
Congressional Research Service
12

---

Deregulating Genetically Engineered Alfalfa and Sugar Beets

predicted and controlled. It also claims the EA is procedurally flawed because it was issued after
the 2010 seedlings were growing. This case was transferred to the D.C. District Court upon a
motion by APHIS.57
The American Crystal Sugar Company, which grows about half of U.S. sugar beets, and other
sugar processors filed suit in the D.C. District Court to eliminate the interim conditions put on
both sugar beet root crop and sugar beet seed crop by APHIS.58 The plaintiffs seek the alternative
remedy of a court declaration that the EA is legally sufficient, which could block a NEPA
challenge by other parties. These two cases were consolidated.59 In light of the July 2012
regulatory decision, the court is reviewing whether the case is moot. The Center for Food Safety
claims that the issue is not entirely moot, arguing that APHIS might issue partial deregulation for
other GE crops without complying with NEPA.60
Proposals for Plant Biotechnology Regulatory and
Legislative Changes
The cases of GE alfalfa and GE sugar beets highlight the regulatory complexities of such
biological innovations, especially as they pertain to commercialization of these GE varieties
through the APHIS process of deregulation. While initial deregulation of herbicide-tolerant and
pest-resistant GE corn, soybeans, and cotton varieties led to widespread adoption of these plants
over the past 15 years, new GE plant innovations are raising new concerns about the adequacy of
the APHIS biotechnology regulatory regime. For example, current development of GE varieties
of corn that will express industrial chemicals and pharmaceuticals raises concerns about their
potential to cross-pollinate with corn meant for human consumption. Both GE alfalfa and GE
sugar beets show the potential for such cross-pollination and its attendant environmental impacts.
With development of GE plants that express industrial chemicals, the issue may take on even
greater environmental significance. Another environmental concern has arisen as acreage of
herbicide-tolerant GE varieties has increased: herbicide-resistant weeds (mainly glyphosate-
tolerant varieties) have also evolved. The plant biotechnology industry is responding to such
weed resistance with development of new “stacked” GE varieties, ones combining tolerance to
several different herbicides within a single seed. Such innovations may raise further concerns
about the adequacy of the existing regulatory structure.
Proposed APHIS Revisions
In July 2007, APHIS published a draft EIS as part of the evaluation of its regulatory structure. In
October 2008, APHIS proposed a revision of its regulations regarding the import, interstate
movement, and environmental release of certain GE organisms.61 A subsequent issue-focused

57 Center for Food Safety v. Vilsack, No. 3:11-CV-00831 (N.D. Cal. March 17, 2011). Upon transfer, that case became
Center for Food Safety v. Vilsack, No. 1:11-cv-00586 (D.D.C. 2011).
58 Grant v. Vilsack, No. 1:11-cv-00308-JDB (D.D.C. complaint filed February 7, 2011).
59 Grant v. Vilsack, No. 1:11-cv-00308 (D.D.C. April 12, 2011).
60 Grant v. Vilsack, No. 1:11-cv-00308 (D.D.C. Aug. 10, 2012) (Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Memorandum).
61 73 Federal Register 60009 (October 9, 2008). Document access at http://frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/
PDFgate.cgi?WAISdocID=DZom2U/2/2/0&WAISaction=retrieve.
Congressional Research Service
13

---

Deregulating Genetically Engineered Alfalfa and Sugar Beets

meeting on the proposed rule changes was held on April 29-30, 2009. The public comment period
initially was to end on November 24, 2008, but was extended to June 29, 2009. The final rule has
not yet been published. These proposed revisions are the first since the regulations were
established in 1987. Under current regulations, a GE organism is a regulated article if it is a plant
pest or there is reason to believe it might become a plant pest. In the notification of the proposed
regulation revisions, APHIS stated that technological advances have led to the possibility of
developing GE organisms that do not fit within the plant pest definition, but still might cause
environmental or other physical harm by the definition of a plant pest under the Plant Protection
Act. According to APHIS, the new regulations would subject a GE organism to oversight based
on known plant pest and noxious weed risks of the parent organisms, or based on the traits of the
GE organism, or based on the possibility of unknown risks as a plant pest or noxious weed when
insufficient information is available.62 The proposed regulations also include regulating GE
seedlings, tubers, cuttings, bulbs, and spores.
APHIS further proposes to reorganize the regulations for permit applications and evaluation
procedures by discontinuing its notification procedure, while retaining the permitting procedure.
The proposed regulations would also establish a new petition procedure for APHIS to approve a
new conditional exemption from the permit requirements, which is currently done by amending
regulations.
For environmental releases, APHIS proposes a permitting system based on two primary risk-
related factors: (1) the ability of the unmodified recipient plant species to persist in the wild, and
(2) the potential of the GE trait to cause harm based on the plant pest and noxious weed
definitions. With respect to the persistence factor, APHIS proposes grouping plant species into
four risk categories based on the risk of persistence of the plant or its progeny in the environment
without human intervention. Four similar risk categories are also proposed for potential harm
caused by the GE trait. Other proposed regulatory changes include remediation authorities for
failure to comply with regulations, and agency response to low-level presence (LLP) of regulated
plant materials in commercial seeds or grain that may be used for food or feed.
Reactions to the proposed revisions were mixed, and were, in part, the reason APHIS extended
the original comment period and held public meetings on some of the more controversial
proposed changes (e.g., scope of the regulatory changes, incorporation of the Plant Protection
Act’s noxious weed authority into APHIS’s regulatory authority, revision of the permit process,
and environmental release of GE crops that produce pharmaceutical and industrial compounds).
In their comments on the proposed rule changes, biotechnology industry representatives and
nongovernmental organizations expressed opposition to the expansion of APHIS authority to
regulate GE organisms if they posed a risk as a plant pest or noxious weed. The industry
representatives also took issue with the proposal to take a voluntary approach to GE regulation,
arguing that it could have a significant impact on international trade.63 The Center for Food Safety
(CFS) denounced the proposal, stating that “these proposed regulations may set in motion a
process that would put many GE crops completely beyond the bounds of regulation.” CFS said
that its biggest concern is that the proposed rules remove established criteria in determining the
very scope of regulation. In March 2009, more than 80 advocacy groups signed a letter urging

62 Only a small fraction of weeds are considered to be noxious weeds. APHIS currently lists 98 aquatic, terrestrial, or
parasitic plant taxa as noxious weeds.
63 “Industry, NGOs, Strongly Oppose Proposed USDA Biotech Regulation,” Inside U.S. Trade, October 17, 2008.
Congressional Research Service
14

---

Deregulating Genetically Engineered Alfalfa and Sugar Beets

Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack to halt approving GE crops until the agency changes its
regulatory approach to biotechnology.
Legislative Activity
Congress has generally supported development in plant biotechnology. An early step by the
House Agriculture Committee indicated the 112th Congress would continue that trend. At a forum
on January 20, 2011, convened by the House Agriculture Committee, Members queried Secretary
Vilsack about partial deregulation and indicated their support for full deregulation.
While legislative activity was relatively subdued in the 111th Congress, hearings focused on the
relationship between the adoption of various GE varieties and the evolution of herbicide
resistance in weeds.64 Other biotechnology-related legislation in the 111th Congress included the
Genetically Engineered Safety Act of 2010 (H.R. 5578), which would have prohibited the open-
air cultivation of GE pharmaceutical and industrial crops, and the use of common human food or
animal feed as the host plant for a GE pharmaceutical or industrial chemical. Another bill, the
Genetically Engineered Technology Farmer Protection Act (H.R. 5579), would have established
various protections for farmers and ranchers that may potentially suffer economic harm from
genetically engineered seeds, plants, or animals. A third bill, the Genetically Engineered Food
Right to Know Act (H.R. 5577), would have amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act,
the Federal Meat Inspection Act, and the Poultry Products Inspection Act to require that food that
contains a genetically engineered material, or that is produced with a genetically engineered
material, be labeled accordingly.
Partly in response to the cases of GE alfalfa and sugar beets, Congress has made legislative
proposals that would streamline APHIS review process for GE plants. Provisions to amend
APHIS’s regulatory procedures under the Plant Protection Act have been introduced in the House
farm bill (H.R. 6083) and in the House Agriculture appropriations bill (H.R. 5973).


Author Contact Information

Tadlock Cowan
Kristina Alexander
Analyst in Natural Resources and Rural
Legislative Attorney
Development
kalexander@crs.loc.gov, 7-8597
tcowan@crs.loc.gov, 7-7600



64 On July 28, 2010, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform’s Domestic Policy Oversight
Subcommittee held hearings on the emergence of herbicide-resistant weeds, with particular focus on glyphosate-
resistant weeds.
Congressional Research Service
15

---